- (1.)By this petition filed under Art. 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner is challenging the legality of the order dated September 27, 1977 passed by the Presiding Officer, 4th Labour Court, Bombay whereby the application filed by the workmen under S. 33C (2) of the Industrial Disputes Act. 1947 (hereinafter referred to as the "Act") was dismissed.
(2.)The petitioner was in the employment of respondent No. 1 mills between January, 1945 and April, 1975 and was drawing daily wages at the rate of Rs. 18. The petitioner tendered resignation in the month of April, 1975 under Voluntary Retirement Scheme. On retirement, the Company paid the petitioner an amount of Rs. 3,260 towards the retrenchment compensation. The petitioner claims that he was entitled to receive a sum of Rs. 8,100 and to recover the balance amount, the petitioner filed the application under S. 33-C(2) of the Act before the Labour Court. The petitioner claimed that he is entitled to retrenchment compensation as per the provisions of S. 25F of the Act. The application was resisted by the respondent No. 1-Mills-Inter-alia claiming that the petitioner had joined the service in January, 1955 but he was not in continuous service till April, 1975. The company claimed that the service of the petitioner was interrupted as the petitioner left the service in the year 1958 and was re-employed. The company also claimed that as the petitioner had not worked for a period of 240 days every year in the years 1948, 1958, 1965, 1967 and 1971 to 1974, the petitioner could not be deemed to be in continuous service as contemplated by S. 25B of the Act.
(3.)The Labour Court, after recording the evidence led on behalf of the workman and the employer, came to the conclusion that the contention of the employer that the petitioner was re-employed in the year 1958 could not be accepted. The Labour Court accepted the claim of the mills that the petitioner did not work for a period of 240 days every year in eight years during his service. The Labour Court thereupon held that the claim made by the petitioner that he was in continuous service could not be accepted. The workman had made a grievance that the company had deducted an amount of Rs. 916.88 towards the lay-off compensation while determining the amount of retrenchment compensation and that was contrary to the rules. The Labour Court declined to consider that question on the ground that it was not pleaded in the application filed by the workman.